drabslabAlbania.. why it was allowed into NATO is a qood question.
A failed state like Albania is in constant danger of falling in the hands of an enterpreneurial dictator or organised crime.
That is not something one wants immediately next to the EU and in the middle of NATO.
Tying Albania to NATO gives some control on what goes on there, closes the country for terrorist camps or bases of foreign countries (like Russia) and slowly starts the process of better government in albania itself.
a win-win situation for everybody.
drabslabNice nonsence-list, Billy BS.
One of the largest? The US, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Greece and the Netherlands have more fighters than Canada…
Blah blah blah… especially since you yourself are either to ignorant, arrogant or just plain lazy to actually give arguments for your own fanboy-listing.
Why so high? The CF is way smaller, and just as deployable as any of the expeditionary F-16 airforces.
So you’re mightily impressed by two squadrons of MiG-29s and a bunch of Fitters? The glory days of the PWL are long gone, unless you consider dozens of TS11s to be valuable NATO assets.
Your later argument for this was really, really funny. Especially since back in the Cold War days, the Norwegians would get two squadrons of Dutch NF-5s to assist them… ’nuff said.
Looking forward to your evidence why two dozens L-159s and ten MiG-21MFs are better than three squadrons of F-16AM/BMs. Tear down this argument, please.
Also, the BLu is bigger than the RDAF. Your argumentation being???Why Estonia above Latvia? Even if you do know the difference between the three Baltic states, you surely don’t know the sizes of their airforces. A hint: Estonia’s airfleet can be counted on the fingers of one hand, but for Latvia you need two.
Ah, i guess the E-3A’s don’t count.
I really love it when people are so prominent in displaying their ignorance. Or to quote the famous German philosopher H.J. Breuer: “Mann, quatsch doch nicht so!” 🙂
You really are cocksure, aint you
drabslabI do not agree, vortex. turkey doesn’t only have an impressive airforce on paper but also in experience. Remember years of CAS -missions against the Kurds. Turkey did send 12 F-16C to Italy to support ‘deny flight’ and ‘Allied force’. In the latter they flew CAP-missions (some lasting 4 hours). I don’t know if they flew offensive missions.
BTW love the knew paintscheme of their upgraded Phantoms.mark
and don’t forget thier constant “cold war” situation with Greece and he many confrontations between both airforces. Much more realistic than normal training dogfights as they never know if the oponent will really shoot this time or only pretend as usual
drabslabCoverage from DEWline blog on FLight Global:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/12/f-22-assembly-line-fades-into.html
If only the operational aircraft were running smoothly ….
yes, and the F-35 production is grinding to a halt a well
drabslabdrabslab- you use the term Object Oriented Design, but what I think you really are referring to are interfaces, or more commonly referred to as an API, Application Programming Interface. You dont need object orientation to make interfaces, in fact using the object orientation of a particular language (god forbid C++) throughout a system is a particularly bad idea. The 3 most commonly used languages in critical embedded systems are C (not object oriented), C++ (formalizes C structs into objects) and Ada (which has sane type based object orientation).
No, I am not refering to interfaces (alone), I am refering to designing each subsystem (hard and software) in such a way that it is self-supporting, can react upon events triggered by the main system, is able to maintain itself, knows how to handle exceptions, catches its own failures… without bothering the main system with all those details… the interface is only one aspect of that.
In fact, the “happy functioning” of a complex system is only a small part of its design. The biggest efforts goes towards dealing with errors, reduced functionality, automated detection of upcoming problems …
Example: in engines it is common now to have constant vibration measurement. The engines computer stores the, for each engine unique, vibration pattern of itself. A change in that pattern may indicate that e.g; a fuel pump is giving up. During flight, the engine computer will automatically reduce the use of that pump and put a higher load on the other pumps to avoid a critical failure during that flight; After touchdown, the same computer will, using the common data bus, inform the mechanics of the problem so that measures can be taken.
A similar example: when an enging is undergoing a large maintenance, and a number of new features are installed in that engine that make it more responsive, or fuel efficient, or whatever… then you want to be able to put that engine back in the plane, link its computer system to the main system, and use it without needing to make changes to the main system as well.
drabslabwrong again djcross
First of all aerospace companies have their own little army of embedded systems programmers to design the control systems of an airframe. They are not going to rely on external software localized to each control surface, that would be crazy. The only thing a control surface does is change angle, you dont need isolated software to do that, its all centrally controlled. The only thing that has to be controlled in a control surface are hydraulics or some kind of servo actuated control which might or might not have been designed off the shelf by an outside contractor. In the case of FBW you need a unified system, it cannot be programmed individually.
I am quite convinced that djcross is right!
What he is describing is an advanced form of object oriented design, which started of in IT developments (late sixties) creating virtual objects with embedded behaviour patterns; these objects are then called by other objects or containers until you get a complete and complex program; The huge advantage in software design is that you can subcontract the design of one part of the software (one object) and simply plug it in in the main software without having to know how the pugin functions internally.
The approach largely facilitates testing, maintenance and upgrades without affecting other parts of the code. Later on this approach has evolved towards a combination of software and hardware into a real object that can be plugged in into a bigger thing. You find plenty of everyday uses of this in modern cars.
The more complex the complete assembly is that yuo are making (and a modern fighter can probably be described as a complex assembly) the more important it becomes that diffficulties are isolated. You do not want to have to change the complete software of an entire airplane just because one valve needs a minor software upgrade. If that would be the case, with thousands of software managed components then there would never be a stable version of the airplane software.
The same for armament. each weapon comes with its own program which is called from the main “shooter” software. the only thing that has to be agreed and standardised is which parameters have to be transferred.
Without OOD, the progress and changes of any part of the planes design would be totally dependent on the progress and design of any other part. This may have been possible at gen 1 of fighters but for a gen 5…
drabslabThey don’t have to because
drabslabLook at that site full of EADS & Eurofighter ads. Hence its rubbish.
Your comment is intellectually dishonest!
The real source is a report made by senator sanders for the US Congress (as is made very clear at the end of the article).
Preparing the report costed 81000 dollars and was excecuted on basis of a strict methodology and by using rulings in US court to assess the size of corruption and fraud.
So, unless you truly believe that US senators and US judges are on the EADS and Eurofighter payrole…
drabslabIsn’t that what capitalism is meant to be?
Capitalism is an extreme, just like communism, whereby 1% manipulate 99%.
Let’s hope that the wall Street 99% make achange and that capialism goes the same way as communism
drabslab….and for companies that make large profits out of making and selling the guns, bombs, planes, ships etc. that are used by those armed forces?
only for as long as there are sufficient people around prepared to pay for all that rubish and die in all those wars
drabslabInteresting posting on the DEWline blog:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/photos-fighter-bomber-trainer.html#comments
They may not be totally new to some of you, but key features in these renderings are top mounted engines and no vertical tail surfaces for the future fighter/bomber designs…
Of course if we look back to the 1980s and see what they proposed in public for the ATF competition, one could say that they are just a bunch of nice drawings.
Let’s just hope that, by the time that US and others are able to build these things, humanity has already discovered that there are other ways to settle differences than stupidly blowing things up
drabslabWhich US Navy invasion????
China is 9,640,011 square kilometer large. As big as the US as it happens.
The US population is only 250 million people, the Chinese count more than a billion.
Any invasion will only be able to occupy a fraction of the territory and control a tiny part of the population… and get the rest very p’ss’d off.
China can’t be invaded unless by someone totally suicidal or ultimately crazy.
drabslabEqually equipped enemy is anyone who owns sufficient assets to attack the forward bases where F-22s would be deployed. It would be plain stupid to concentrate effort on targeting the F-22s while they are flying whern you can comfortably blow them to pieces while on the ground.
Quite right: US got for a long time the comfortable position of being the attacker with no-one treatening their air bases, core facilities…
Besides, when they are flying, and depending on internal fuel and refueling, you can also concentrate on blowing highly needed (and not very stealthy) tankers out of the sky.
drabslabThe exact same that Vipers, Eagles and SH´s would do, with the added bonus of VLO signature, that equals to less casualties in the USAF/USNAVY band wagon, and more casualties on the other side…
Vipers, Eagles and SuperHornets go in to do something useful: drop 10+ tons of ordnance on the enemy. How is the f-22 going to do that while maintaining VLO?
drabslabAnywhere were double digits SAM´s and evolved Flankers would be present in decent numbers. On a “purely theoretical” scenario, its called “China”.
Cheers
and what would they do in that environment?
Sign In
